1. Warner Bros. is nuts if they think I'm paying $9.99/month just for their movies/shows. I'm am *not* going to shell out who-knows-how-many subscriptions to every movie house.

2. Netflix is nuts if they think I'm going to shell out a subscription just for their "exclusive" shows. I joined because they were the "Steam" of movies and made life easier when it came to renting what I wanted when I wanted. The streaming part was a nice add-on, but not a necessity.

Someone at Netflix doesn't understand why people like them. Netflix is the best distribution platform. It works, their UI isn't utter garbage, it's cheap, and they have good enough content. This is their strength.

The contents of Netflix’s instant streaming catalog wax and wane all the time, but it’s rare that there is such a mass exodus from the service. Starz let its own contract with Netflix expire in February 2012, which resulted in the loss of titles like Amélie and around a thousand others.

Do the changes described in this article affect people outside the US? I ask because Amélie is still available on Netflix in the UK.

you'd think they'd have had the sense to at least do this gradually, so as to not piss people off. maybe netflix was smart enough not to take a deal like that.... but, at this rate, it could be a pyrrhic victory.

How stupid of WB. If a producer wants their products to be bought, they don't say "you can't buy our widget at Target or Walmart, only at our store that you have to pay extra for just to get in the door and only carries our products". They make it available to as many competing stores as possible.

So because Netflix doesn't carry the content you decide you will download illegal copies of the shows.

Yes downloading any of the content mentioned int he article wouldn't be illegal if it was found on a torrent website.

When people don't have the money to purchase something from a physical store most people just go without they don't steal it from the said store. Digital content is no different if HBO can't be subscribed to, it doesn't give you a right to torrent their shows, most people just simply go without watching HBO content.

I'm not going to sign up for a dozen different streaming services just to have access to the content of each publisher's library. And if I want to watch a movie, do they think I'm going to like having to Google the movie to find out it's publisher first and then go and log into that service to watch it?

I like Netflix because it's cheap and has a wide selection. Maybe the big studios can all pull out and kill Netflix, but I'm not trading my $8/month Netflix for a dozen $10/month services.

It's always the same with the media companies, they want to keep prices high and access limited. They just don't get how the internet works. I want access to everything and I want it at a decent price. And there's no reason that can't be available now.

Well what the hell...a big chunk of what I watch on Netflix is WB content (Batman Beyond, Supernatural, that sort of thing) but WB is crazy if they think it's enough on its own to pull down $10 a month from me.

Fuck them. I'll go buy used DVDs of the things I want to watch, and then neither of them will see a fucking cent from me. Great job, WB.

What's with video streaming and exclusivity deals? Why is it that the video industry has learned NOTHING from the music one when it comes to internet distribution? iTunes wouldn't have been nearly as successful as it is if content negotiations had been handled this way.

Warner Bros. Is taking its business to its own streaming service, WB Archive Instant, which is priced at $9.99 per month. If the service’s best offerings are placed front and center on the home page, shown above, we’re not entirely sold.

According to The Verge, they're not adding the titles to their catalog.

Quote:

While it has been posited that the titles were disappearing because they were heading to the Warner Instant Archive streaming service, that appears to not be the case. Warner Instant took to Twitter today to emphasize that not only does it not carry titles from MGM or Universal — its catalog is Warner Bros.-only — but that the titles disappearing from Netflix wouldn't be coming over to Warner Instant Archive right away in the first place.

A trend towards fragmentation (without an acceptable price point to match) is exactly what drives me away as a consumer. I put down individual subscriptions for certain niche providers because I specifically want them to keep doing their thing, but the more big companies split from Netflix, the more they devalue the services of both Netflix and their own content. I, like a lot of people, am lazy and cheap and I really prefer one big hub to a lot of little ones.

I wonder if these companies realize that I'm not about to start signing up for 10 different streaming services to get tiny subsets of content for each. Their stuff simply isn't worth that much to me.

You mean you're not interested in $9 x 12 different subscriptions on top of your $100/month cable bill and your $70/month Internet bill? Why not? I mean, they provide you with "unique" user experiences, which is a really great benefit.

And all the content owners, having exactly zero understanding how ANYTHING works, decide to get in a dick waving competition and take back all of their content in house to make their own service because dagnabbit if Netflix can do it with our content so can we and thereby make it so that no one wants it because it would mean paying hundreds of dollars a month to a dozen different content prodivers to get access to all the programs they want and goes back to piracy.

First rule of stopping piracy: stop making legal consumption so god damn difficult.

So because Netflix doesn't carry the content you decide you will download illegal copies of the shows.

Yes downloading any of the content mentioned int he article wouldn't be illegal if it was found on a torrent website.

When people don't have the money to purchase something from a physical store most people just go without they don't steal it from the said store. Digital content is no different if HBO can't be subscribed to, it doesn't give you a right to torrent their shows, most people just simply go without watching HBO content.

i'm right fucking tired of this entitled attitude. i feel like a group of connected rich people have been holding the wealth of human culture on the top shelf and meting out access at overinflated prices. most of the money goes to the studios, not the people that actually make the movies.

It's just hilarious that this is seriously the worst possible idea from a business sense, and that's readily apparent by anyone who is not vigorously masturbating to the idea of swimming in Scrooge McDuckesque piles of money (which won't happen due to the aforementioned sheer horribleness of the idea).

Nobody drives a half hour to see the latest WB movie at a WB exclusive theater because that would be incredibly fucking stupid. This is the same thing.

So because Netflix doesn't carry the content you decide you will download illegal copies of the shows.

Yes downloading any of the content mentioned int he article wouldn't be illegal if it was found on a torrent website.

When people don't have the money to purchase something from a physical store most people just go without they don't steal it from the said store. Digital content is no different if HBO can't be subscribed to, it doesn't give you a right to torrent their shows, most people just simply go without watching HBO content.

No, when people don't have money to purchase something from a physical store, they go online and get it for a discount.

You mean you're not interested in $9 x 12 different subscriptions on top of your $100/month cable bill and your $70/month Internet bill? Why not? I mean, they provide you with "unique" user experiences, which is a really great benefit.

I've actually skipped out on the cable bill part for much the same reason ; not interested in paying for 500 channels out of which I care about a handful of shows on maybe 5 of those channels. Doubly so with the outrageous amount of advertising you get on top of that in the US, even with all the money you're paying.

I like House of Cards as much as the next guy - I am glad to get it for free, because I have a netflix subscription for all those old movies. That giant catelog of old movies and TV shows you may have never heard of is the real underpinning of the netflix service, and it makes me mad to see it erode. As many have said, no way will I pay for a WB only service.

I was happy with Netflix until I ran out of things I like to watch, and I have watched lots. I now use Netflix for its original series. It use to get me into other series like Dexter, Lost Girl, and many others, when it was not available on there I went to Amazon to continue. There is no way I will pay for a show without watching a season at the bulk pricing of Netflix. This for me will just cut down on things I feel compelled to watch, which means less revenue for the studios. I don't buy movies anymore because I go to the theater and see what I want and then I am done. The cost of doing these things the old fashioned way is to high and I hate commercials.

Someone at Netflix doesn't understand why people like them. Netflix is the best distribution platform. It works, their UI isn't utter garbage, it's cheap, and they have good enough content. This is their strength.

I think they realize It, but they know cant be looking down that path anymore. All the studios and content providers keep pulling their content off Netflix, the only thing Netflix can do is become one therm selves, or go out of business.

I for one, will stick with them as long as theres something for me to watch. House of cards was great. I havent watched any of the other exclusives (mainly because Doctor Who needs a third and possibly a fourth run through) but it still the best streaming/dvd deal out there.

I'm done with this nonsense. I'm going back to physical media; at least I know I'll have the shows when I want them and not get a surprise when one day they're no longer available with my preferred streaming service.

I don't get it. You are upset that a content OWNER is deciding to offer their own content via their own streaming service? HOW DARE THEY! Nextflix has been operating on a flawed business model for a long time. They were OK as long as none of the content owners saw any value in streaming their own content themselves.

If WB want's me to subscribe, they need to do it for what I'd pay for a single a la carte channel (were such a thing to exist) at about $2/month. Everyone wants to get in the game at $8-10 because they see that people for pay that for Netflix. But that's an aggregation service, and these little silos are just ridiculous. WB should have been happy it was getting some revenue from those at all (there are some real stinkers), and very little that will pull any significant amount of people in for more than the occasional 1 month rental to watch a few things (and then promptly cancel).

They seem to think most people know or care what Warner Bros. content is. I don't think their brand is nearly as valuable as they think it is, and I suspect they're about to find that out the hard way.

I'd venture to say most movie- and TV-watchers couldn't even name five studios, and wouldn't know or care the difference even if they could. I don't go to Netflix to watch a Warner Bros. movie, or a Sony movie - I want to watch a good movie, and I don't care who made it.